Tolkien Quote “Touching your cap to the squire may be damn b

[Túrin Turambar]

Yes, that quote crossed my mind as well. To say a little more (and only a little, because I could probably write an essay on this given the time) you can see this pop up in English literature contemporary to Tolkien. Take Parade's End, Ford Madox Ford's modernist novel about the destruction of the old English social order in the First World War. The main character, Christopher Tietjens, "the last Tory", who is a wealthy landowner in Yorkshire, keeps trying to live up to his understanding of how a man in his position should act through the chaos of the world around him. When another character asks him what his toryism (i.e. conservatism) is, he replies "Duty. Duty and service to above and below. Frugality. Keeping your word. Honouring the past. Looking after your people. And beggaring yourself if need be before letting duty go hang. If we'd have stayed out of it I'd have gone to France to fight for France. For agriculture against industrialism. For the 18th Century against the 20th, if you like." It's a sentiment I think Tolkien would have approved of, or at least been sympathetic to.

As a side note, for those who don't find fat modernist novels all that accessible or enjoyable, the BBC made an excellent adaptation of Parade's End a few years ago staring Benedict Cumberbatch as Tietjens.

[TolkienJRR]

Yes, that quote crossed my mind as well. To say a little more (and only a little, because I could probably write an essay on this given the time) you can see this pop up in English literature contemporary to Tolkien. Take Parade's End, Ford Madox Ford's modernist novel about the destruction of the old English social order in the First World War. The main character, Christopher Tietjens, "the last Tory", who is a wealthy landowner in Yorkshire, keeps trying to live up to his understanding of how a man in his position should act through the chaos of the world around him. When another character asks him what his toryism (i.e. conservatism) is, he replies "Duty. Duty and service to above and below. Frugality. Keeping your word. Honouring the past. Looking after your people. And beggaring yourself if need be before letting duty go hang. If we'd have stayed out of it I'd have gone to France to fight for France. For agriculture against industrialism. For the 18th Century against the 20th, if you like." It's a sentiment I think Tolkien would have approved of, or at least been sympathetic to.

As a side note, for those who don't find fat modernist novels all that accessible or enjoyable, the BBC made an excellent adaptation of Parade's End a few years ago staring Benedict Cumberbatch as Tietjens.

Thank you, I think you hit the nail on the head it seems.

[Frelga]

It occurs to me that it is that awareness of his proper place in the world that saves Sam from the influence of the Ring. He knows he only wants his one small garden.

Still, there's some upward mobility in the Shire, and Sam becomes a mayor despite not being really a gentlehobbit. And his daughter goes to Queen Arwen's court.

[Inanna]

I don’t think knowing what you want, and that is your “small garden” is “knowing your place”. I know what I want - my current small job - but if you told me that was “my place” I would be on you like a ton of rectangular things.

[elengil]

I think 'knowing your place' can be an unfortunate phrasing because of what it usually denotes, but there is something to be said for knowing within yourself where you fit in and that you do fit just there and that is what makes you perfectly happy. Not in a derogatory being told "know your place" kind of way but in a peaceful, self-assured, freeing kind of way.

[Inanna]

Yes, of course. But the preceding discussion was in terms of social hierarchy, and I answered in those terms.

[elengil]

Yes, of course. But the preceding discussion was in terms of social hierarchy, and I answered in those terms.

Yes, I meant in context of Frelga mentioning that Sam knew his place in the world. I think the term can be used as a positive in some situations.

[Túrin Turambar]

It occurs to me that it is that awareness of his proper place in the world that saves Sam from the influence of the Ring. He knows he only wants his one small garden.

Still, there's some upward mobility in the Shire, and Sam becomes a mayor despite not being really a gentlehobbit. And his daughter goes to Queen Arwen's court.

That little scene is a good example of the same sentiment. Tolkien's villains are basically people who do not "know their place" and seek to rule and dominate others when they have no entitlement to do so, or to undo, corrupt or re-work God's natural order for the cosmos. Tolkien may have seen the real-world villains of his own time in similar terms (Hitler's place was not to rule Europe, the Bolsheviks' place was not to break and re-build Russia in their own fashion).

[Alatar]

Here’s the full interview. It’s actually fascinating because the interviewer is obviously very well read and well versed in Tolkien yet almost every point or observation he makes is challenged or corrected by Tolkien in some way!

[TolkienJRR]

It is essentially God's Plan thinking: you are born into a specific social caste/role because that is god's intention for you; and accepting your role fully while expecting all others also to fulfil their roles and treating them in accordance with the divine pecking order is the fulfilment of God's Plan.

Eg The King is king by Divine right.

Of course, we have the godly gift of free will so we can choose (or not) to abide by God's Plan. Giving deference to those whom God has placed above you shows you have virtuously deferred to God's will by overcoming your own weak human willfulness - and deferring to God is good for you.

Ergo: deferring to your born betters is good for you.

For the record: I completely reject this.

Deference to wisdom: yes
Deference to experience, skill, compassion, kindness: yes
I defer to those who have earned my respect, no matter their status in the meaningless pecking order of inherited power and wealth.

I don't think this is an accurate portrayal at all. Divine right of kings did not start till after the Protestant reformation and was originated by protestants, so hardly a feudal medival idea. It is from God we get the ideas of all being equal before him all created in the image of God etc it was paganism that thought a caste system [as well as Buddhism I believe].

For I know the plans I have for you,” declares the Lord, “plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future.
Jerimiah 29.11

I don't see any justification for claiming god thinks better of those in power, he consitnley chose the weak to do mighty acts. Look at Jesus a poor carpenter, Moses, David, paul, peter, mary, ruth, etc etc the list is never-ending.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

it was paganism that thought a caste system [as well as Buddhism I believe].

I'm not sure exactly what you are saying here. There are caste systems of different types in many cultures around the world As for Buddhism, Siddhārtha Gautama who lived in ancient India (c. 5th to 4th century BCE) and is regarded as the founder of the world religion of Buddhism was born into an aristocratic family in the Shakya clan but eventually renounced lay life and the caste system. He antagonized the Brahmin class (the "highest" caste) by allowing "untouchables" (the "lowest" caste) to be ordained into his Sangha. To say that Buddhism "thought a caste system" is exactly the opposite of the truth.

[TolkienJRR]

it was paganism that thought a caste system [as well as Buddhism I believe].

I'm not sure exactly what you are saying here. There are caste systems of different types in many cultures around the world As for Buddhism, Siddhārtha Gautama who lived in ancient India (c. 5th to 4th century BCE) and is regarded as the founder of the world religion of Buddhism was born into an aristocratic family in the Shakya clan but eventually renounced lay life and the caste system. He antagonized the Brahmin class (the "highest" caste) by allowing "untouchables" (the "lowest" caste) to be ordained into his Sangha. To say that Buddhism "thought a caste system" is exactly the opposite of the truth.

Thanks for the correction. I did say "I believe" because I was not 100% sure. Is it Hindusim, my bad.

[Frelga]

I am also pretty sure that the idea of a monarch as the divine representative on earth predates Reformation, although in Catholicism it was trumped by the divin-er representative in the Pope.

[Túrin Turambar]

It's true that the Medieval Catholic idea of kingship was more complex than the claims of divine right made by the Stuarts. In justifying monarchy, Thomas Aquinas didn't just say "God chose the King", but rather wrote a longer explanation starting from the position that man couldn't meet all his wants or needs living alone, hence he needed a society, hence that society needed a ruler or rulers, and a single ruler would create the least disunity and promote a common purpose. I found this on the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy which explains it pretty well:

Simply Stated, the best regime is monarchy. Aquinas’ argument for this is drawn from a mixture of philosophical and theological observations. Inasmuch as the goal of any ruler should be the “unity of peace,” the regime is better governed by one person rather than by many. For this end is much more efficaciously secured by a single wise authority who is not burdened by having to deliberate with others who may be less wise and who may stand in the way of effective governance. As Aquinas observes in his letter On Kingship, any governing body comprised of many must always strive to act as one in order to move the regime closer to the intended goal. In this sense, therefore, the less perfect regimes tend to imitate monarchy in which unanimity of rule is realized at once and without obstruction (On Kingship, Book 1, Chapter 2). This conclusion is confirmed by the example of nature, which always “does what is best.” For the many powers of the human soul are governed by a single power, i.e., reason. A hive of bees is ruled by a single bee, i.e., the queen. And most convincingly of all, the universe is governed by the single authority of God, “Maker and Ruler of all things.” As art is called to imitate nature, human society is therefore best that is governed by a single authority of a eminently wise and just monarch who resembles God as much as humanly possible.

Aquinas is well aware, of course, that such a monarch is not always available in political societies, and even where he is available it is not always guaranteed that the conditions will be right to grant him the political authority he ought to wield. Even worse, there is always the danger that the monarch will be corrupted and become a tyrant. In this case the best of all regimes has the greatest tendency to become the worst. This is why, whereas monarchy is the best regime simply speaking, it is not always the best regime in a particular time and place, which is to say it is certainly not always the best possible regime. Therefore, Aquinas outlines in the Summa Theologiae a more modest proposal whereby political rule is somewhat decentralized.

This makes sense, given that medieval monarchy was not always absolute or hereditary in practice (e.g. Edward II, Richard II, and Henry VI were all deposed and the Church was happy to crown their successors) and the Church would obviously not recognise as legitimate a heretical king.

What this means in practice is that the king and his subjects should both 'know their place' so to speak. It would be injurious for the community for members to refuse to obey the law and try to overthrow the government without cause, and likewise, for a king to govern outside the constraints of natural and divine law.

[TolkienJRR]

I am also pretty sure that the idea of a monarch as the divine representative on earth predates Reformation, although in Catholicism it was trumped by the divin-er representative in the Pope.

The original American motto of "Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God" best fits feudalism. The church and people practiced it the people and lesser lords did as well. There was a sort of responsibility of a monarchy to act as God's agent but when he did not he was to be replaced. This is different from saying God put each individual here [rather than say, rulers] and they are to be obeyed as if he himself wanted each ruler in place. That has no foundation in the Bible, in fact you will find the opposite. More to the point Tolkien held this feudalistic understanding of Lordship and leaders were rebelled against time and again, even overthrown such as in the scourging of the shire.

[TolkienJRR]

It's true that the Medieval Catholic idea of kingship was more complex than the claims of divine right made by the Stuarts. In justifying monarchy, Thomas Aquinas didn't just say "God chose the King", but rather wrote a longer explanation starting from the position that man couldn't meet all his wants or needs living alone, hence he needed a society, hence that society needed a ruler or rulers, and a single ruler would create the least disunity and promote a common purpose. I found this on the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy which explains it pretty well:

Simply Stated, the best regime is monarchy. Aquinas’ argument for this is drawn from a mixture of philosophical and theological observations. Inasmuch as the goal of any ruler should be the “unity of peace,” the regime is better governed by one person rather than by many. For this end is much more efficaciously secured by a single wise authority who is not burdened by having to deliberate with others who may be less wise and who may stand in the way of effective governance. As Aquinas observes in his letter On Kingship, any governing body comprised of many must always strive to act as one in order to move the regime closer to the intended goal. In this sense, therefore, the less perfect regimes tend to imitate monarchy in which unanimity of rule is realized at once and without obstruction (On Kingship, Book 1, Chapter 2). This conclusion is confirmed by the example of nature, which always “does what is best.” For the many powers of the human soul are governed by a single power, i.e., reason. A hive of bees is ruled by a single bee, i.e., the queen. And most convincingly of all, the universe is governed by the single authority of God, “Maker and Ruler of all things.” As art is called to imitate nature, human society is therefore best that is governed by a single authority of a eminently wise and just monarch who resembles God as much as humanly possible.

Aquinas is well aware, of course, that such a monarch is not always available in political societies, and even where he is available it is not always guaranteed that the conditions will be right to grant him the political authority he ought to wield. Even worse, there is always the danger that the monarch will be corrupted and become a tyrant. In this case the best of all regimes has the greatest tendency to become the worst. This is why, whereas monarchy is the best regime simply speaking, it is not always the best regime in a particular time and place, which is to say it is certainly not always the best possible regime. Therefore, Aquinas outlines in the Summa Theologiae a more modest proposal whereby political rule is somewhat decentralized.

This makes sense, given that medieval monarchy was not always absolute or hereditary in practice (e.g. Edward II, Richard II, and Henry VI were all deposed and the Church was happy to crown their successors) and the Church would obviously not recognise as legitimate a heretical king.

What this means in practice is that the king and his subjects should both 'know their place' so to speak. It would be injurious for the community for members to refuse to obey the law and try to overthrow the government without cause, and likewise, for a king to govern outside the constraints of natural and divine law.

Great post. Aquinas on Kingship is available free online and he and other major medival theologians endorsed resisting and overthrowing tyrants. Medival politics was the most libertarian decentralized self-governing societies the west has ever known. It was not until the renaissance and the creation of our modern centralized nation-states that monarchies began to become absolute monarchies. Under feudalism The Two Towers [pun intended] of authority were tradition and law. Lords could not go outside of these two pillars of government. It was not like in our modern day of politicians passing laws bossing us around to their advantage. The laws came from tradition that grew organically from the people for theirs and everyone's in the local areas benefit.

As a side note, I believe hereditary monarchies are the best system for liberty, the opposite of what we are taught. The only way of keeping those out of power who desire to manipulate the powers of the state to their advantage is hereditary titles.

[Aravar]

. But he says it's "damn bad for the squire".

Not being British I can't speak to whether this was some kind of well known idiom or not. I have heard it before, though, in a way. In the first (tv show) episode of Sharpe, there's a line "You've done me a damn good turn. Now I'm going to do you a damn bad one." He doesn't actually do anything bad per se, he gives the man a field commission promoting him to officer. Now, that did come with countless problems, but it wasn't a fundamentally bad thing he did.

That's what leads me to believe that 'bad' in this context may not mean what it seems to mean on the surface.

Damn is just being used as an intensfier rather than anything else.

[elengil]

I'm not sure the use of 'damn' was ever in question

[Aravar]

Yes, although I meant its not being used to add any moral connotation.

Tolkien's quote it is about pride and humility, pride being the worst sin, being that of Satan. It's bad for the squire because it may promote pride, but good for you because it promotes humility.

The Sharpe quote is merely a subversion of the proverbial "one good turn deserves another". Wellington is objectively doing such a thing: rewarding Sharpe for saving his life. He is nevertheless aware that in the social world they inhabit, promoting a ranker may be a very mixed blessing.